DirectX 11.1 restricted to Windows 8?

Microsoft’s latest operating system behemoth copped noticeable criticism across various issues leading up to its release, with notableindustryluminaries chiming in their opposition to the software’s reclusive certification process and boxy exterior. Add another possible flashpoint: Neowin reports a Microsoft tech revealing DirectX 11.1′s exclusivity to Windows 8 with “no plan” to retrofit Windows 7 with the latest version.

“DirectX 11.1 is part of Windows 8, just like DirectX 11 was part of Windows 7,” Microsoft Principal Program Manager Lead Daniel Moth wrote. “DirectX 11 was made available for Vista, but at this point, there is no plan for DirectX 11.1 to be made available on Windows 7.”

A quick scope of DirectX 11.1′s features shows a strong emphasis on efficiency improvements over new features. The most notable addition involves the inclusion of native stereoscopic 3D support which enables DirectX 11.1 games immediate 3D capabilities (with appropriately squarish glasses) by default.

Not many games slapped a padlock on their content purely because of DirectX—Just Cause 2 and Battlefield 3‘s lack of Windows XP support are the two most notable examples—so Windows 7 gamers should be in the clear for the foreseeable future. Though, Microsoft is staying silent—when questioned by Neowin on DirectX 11.1′s Windows 8 exclusivity, the company sent back a simple “nothing to share.”

Basically, they wanna keep things exclusive to Windows 8 in order to get more developers on board, that would make users have to go that route to support newer software purchases, etc. It's pretty shady, and the main reason I won't go past Windows 7.

Basically, they wanna keep things exclusive to Windows 8 in order to get more developers on board, that would make users have to go that route to support newer software purchases, etc. It's pretty shady, and the main reason I won't go past Windows 7.

Dude, this is a big deal. Fracturing Direct X across specific iterations of Windows is not cool for gamers.

What? You think that it will only be Direct X 11.1 for Windows 8? How much you want to wager DirectX12 will be Win8 only? They pulled this crap with Vista too, remember? The infamous Halo CE (PC) vs Crysis screenshots?

Not that my post involved me hopping up and down, screaming obscenities or anything.

This kind of narrow thinking is just... Backwards. Hell, as a web guy MS pulls this same sh*t with IE. Got XP? You can't use IE9 or IE10. Got Win7? No IE10 yet for you.

Apart from screwing over the end user, this provides complications for easily testing how a web page appears in various iterations of IE. Given that IE is often the SINGLE largest impediment for getting a website out the door (because it sucks) this a big deal.

As for Direct X, this means that Vista, Win7 and XP users will be screwed. You want better performance and better graphics? Upgrade to Windows 8. It would still be bad if Win8 were just a slightly better version of Win7, but the fact that it is a MASSIVE overhaul that is night and day different...

Basically Microsoft was trying to show the reason why gamers should jump onboard to Windows Vista. The biggest 'reason' they touted was that DX10 was Vista only and they showed Halo 1 for PC which was "DX9" and compared it to a screenshot of Crysis as "DX10".

Dude, this is a big deal. Fracturing Direct X across specific iterations of Windows is not cool for gamers.

What? You think that it will only be Direct X 11.1 for Windows 8? How much you want to wager DirectX12 will be Win8 only? They pulled this crap with Vista too, remember? The infamous Halo CE (PC) vs Crysis screenshots?

Not that my post involved me hopping up and down, screaming obscenities or anything.

This kind of narrow thinking is just... Backwards. Hell, as a web guy MS pulls this same sh*t with IE. Got XP? You can't use IE9 or IE10. Got Win7? No IE10 yet for you.

Apart from screwing over the end user, this provides complications for easily testing how a web page appears in various iterations of IE. Given that IE is often the SINGLE largest impediment for getting a website out the door (because it sucks) this a big deal.

As for Direct X, this means that Vista, Win7 and XP users will be screwed. You want better performance and better graphics? Upgrade to Windows 8. It would still be bad if Win8 were just a slightly better version of Win7, but the fact that it is a MASSIVE overhaul that is night and day different...

Obviously if DX11.1 is exclusive to W8, then DX 12 will also be exclusive to W8 or even W9.

And if they did this before with vista, why does this surprise you?

MS has been pretty good with IE. XP goes up to 8. Honestly there is no legitimate reason to use xp, given that 7 has been out for ~3 years and 8 just launched.

And why do you complain about IE10 taking more time to be released on 7? You are still getting it, it will just take a few months for them to finish optimizing it for 7. Big deal.

Sorry but MS bent over backwards all the way when it came to legacy support. I'm not saying they should go the apple route, but people expect far too much when it comes to legacy support.

Your last paragraph points out nothing new. 7 supported all tech/software updates till 2009 when it came out. Outside of that it received a few updates for certain things that came out later.

It is only logical that you need to run the latest os to have the best performance you can get from the newest hardware and software.

And the start menu is not a massive overhaul. Changing the way the desktop works would be an example of a massive overhaul. Sorry but everybody always love to complain when changes are made. Be it the ribbon in office, UI changes in vista/7 from xp (I still maintain that XP has the worst gui of any main windows release to date) or the new start screen in W8.

One last thing, you assume all new games will adopt DX11.1 features, but I doubt that will be the case. It could be a repeat of what happened with vista, with most developers sticking with DX11 instead of bothering with 11.1.

Would probably explain why Gabe Newall trashed Windows 8 and why they are releasing STEAM for Linux anyway MS make the worst decisions and have been doing for last couplr of years, there's talk of MS canning Service Pack 2 for Windows 7 because they want people to move to 8.

Reason being is they where late to the touchscreen tech thats taken over since the launch of iPad and its tablets that will be in every house hold soon and to be used for the adverage normal of communication, unlike gamers who will stick to pcs. They now are sort of forcing windows adopters to either jump on the W8 bandwagon or stay without getting better improvments for up coming tech and this is another problem business' have only just started moving over to Windows 7 as most have been stuck on XP and if MS didnt take that into account chances are they are going to suffer because not many will move over to 8 anytime soon I am one of them/.

Would probably explain why Gabe Newall trashed Windows 8 and why they are releasing STEAM for Linux anyway MS make the worst decisions and have been doing for last couplr of years, there's talk of MS canning Service Pack 2 for Windows 7 because they want people to move to 8.

Reason being is they where late to the touchscreen tech thats taken over since the launch of iPad and its tablets that will be in every house hold soon and to be used for the adverage normal of communication, unlike gamers who will stick to pcs. They now are sort of forcing windows adopters to either jump on the W8 bandwagon or stay without getting better improvments for up coming tech and this is another problem business' have only just started moving over to Windows 7 as most have been stuck on XP and if MS didnt take that into account chances are they are going to suffer because not many will move over to 8 anytime soon I am one of them/.

Please tell me what features Win 7 SP2 would need that couldn't be delivered as standalone updates over windows update?

Obviously if DX11.1 is exclusive to W8, then DX 12 will also be exclusive to W8 or even W9.

And if they did this before with vista, why does this surprise you?

MS has been pretty good with IE. XP goes up to 8. Honestly there is no legitimate reason to use xp, given that 7 has been out for ~3 years and 8 just launched.

And why do you complain about IE10 taking more time to be released on 7? You are still getting it, it will just take a few months for them to finish optimizing it for 7. Big deal.

Sorry but MS bent over backwards all the way when it came to legacy support. I'm not saying they should go the apple route, but people expect far too much when it comes to legacy support.

Your last paragraph points out nothing new. 7 supported all tech/software updates till 2009 when it came out. Outside of that it received a few updates for certain things that came out later.

It is only logical that you need to run the latest os to have the best performance you can get from the newest hardware and software.

And the start menu is not a massive overhaul. Changing the way the desktop works would be an example of a massive overhaul. Sorry but everybody always love to complain when changes are made. Be it the ribbon in office, UI changes in vista/7 from xp (I still maintain that XP has the worst gui of any main windows release to date) or the new start screen in W8.

One last thing, you assume all new games will adopt DX11.1 features, but I doubt that will be the case. It could be a repeat of what happened with vista, with most developers sticking with DX11 instead of bothering with 11.1.

As a web developer having that kind of fragmentation is a pain in the ass Matrix. It's quite clear you don't understand given you're lack of experience in my or probably any software related field.

For example, where I work everyone has Windows XP. You say "There's no reason!" - for what? For an individual user? Maybe maybe not. But businesses cannot afford to upgrade all their machines with the latest OS every 2-4 years. So where I work, as a web developer, we're stuck with XP.

That means I do not get access to IE9, or IE10. Period. I have to use third party programs (often for a fee) to "render" what it would look like in these browsers. However, this is also largely useless because alot of the stuff I do is on closed systems with security, so the rendering programs cannot reach the url specified due to improper credentials.

tldr; you just don't know what you're talking about here.

I never said I was "surprised" MS is doing this. Indeed, my first post said "typical MS". The obvious intent of that statement being "Microsoft is up to the same old $#@!".

I'm talking as both a power user and a developer here. Personal and business standpoints.

And no, it doesn't really "make sense" that you have to upgrade your entire OS every 2-3 years or so (current windows release cycle) to get the most out of your "hardware". This is especially nonsensical given the performance track record of MS OS's prior to Windows 7. The trend was "slower, more bloated, inefficient". After the disaster of Vista they started to reverse this trend to smooth over customer relations.

This is arbitrarily locking out features to force customers and developers to hop onto the next OS.

With OpenGL this $#@! doesn't happen, by comparison. Nor with Chrome or Firefox. Both are still updated frequently for the XP operating system, and I have no issues with them. The common thread of aggravation is MS with its proprietary nonsense that it foists upon its users.

As a web developer having that kind of fragmentation is a pain in the ass Matrix. It's quite clear you don't understand given you're lack of experience in my or probably any software related field.

For example, where I work everyone has Windows XP. You say "There's no reason!" - for what? For an individual user? Maybe maybe not. But businesses cannot afford to upgrade all their machines with the latest OS every 2-4 years. So where I work, as a web developer, we're stuck with XP.

That means I do not get access to IE9, or IE10. Period. I have to use third party programs (often for a fee) to "render" what it would look like in these browsers. However, this is also largely useless because alot of the stuff I do is on closed systems with security, so the rendering programs cannot reach the url specified due to improper credentials.

tldr; you're talking out of your ass. Period.

I never said I was "surprised" MS is doing this. Indeed, my first post said "typical MS". The obvious intent of that statement being "Microsoft is up to the same old $#@!".

I'm talking as both a power user and a developer here. Personal and business standpoints.

And no, it doesn't really "make sense" that you have to upgrade your entire OS every 2-3 years or so (current windows release cycle) to get the most out of your "hardware". This is especially nonsensical given the performance track record of MS OS's prior to Windows 7. The trend was "slower, more bloated, inefficient". After the disaster of Vista they started to reverse this trend to smooth over customer relations.

This is arbitrarily locking out features to force customers and developers to hop onto the next OS.

With OpenGL this $#@! doesn't happen, by comparison.

XP release: Oct. 25, 2011

Vista Release: Jan. 30, 2007

Windows 7 Oct. 22 2009

I presume most business came from 2000 to XP. Which likely means they didn't upgrade to XP till around 2004 at the earliest, 2006 at the latest. (time necessary for XP to mature, their software to be updated for xp and their computer contracts (running win2k) to run their course).

Then we have vista, released in 06. But it had several issues, which were not resolved until the 1st service pack in Feb. 2008 That was the point where vista could even be considered as an upgrade/replacement to xp. But I didn't expect businesses to jump on then.

Then we have windows 7 being released in October of 2009. This is the point where businesses should have started to realistically consider it replacing XP. Of course there has to be time allowed for developers to update their software and computer contracts to run their course, but 3 years is more than enough time for that to happen. And for certain legacy software that was never updated to run on anything past XP there is XP mode in windows 7/VM's for that.

So going back to the 04 and 06 updates for most companies, I'll assume most computer lease contracts last for ~4 years. So than means that a company upgrading to XP (on new computers) in 04, would upgrade again in 08 (still running xp) and 2012 (should be on 7). For an 06 company it would be 2010 (should have switched to 7) and 2014.

I don't expect businesses to upgrade to every version of windows. They typically use every other version.

Which means ~6 years on one os (technically 8 for 2 4yr computer lease cycles).

Xp is 12 years old. Think about that There is absolutely no excuse for not moving on to a newer version of windows at this point. Hell MS's sop is support for 11 years, with XP they made it ~13 which is insane.

Seriously XP is a significant detriment, crippling modern hardware and full of security flaws.

Hell even the US army (and likely other military branches) started moving to vista in 09:

I presume most business came from 2000 to XP. Which likely means they didn't upgrade to XP till around 2004 at the earliest, 2006 at the latest. (time necessary for XP to mature, their software to be updated for xp and their computer contracts (running win2k) to run their course).

Then we have vista, released in 06. But it had several issues, which were not resolved until the 1st service pack in Feb. 2008 That was the point where vista could even be considered as an upgrade/replacement to xp. But I didn't expect businesses to jump on then.

Then we have windows 7 being released in October of 2009. This is the point where businesses should have started to realistically consider it replacing XP. Of course there has to be time allowed for developers to update their software and computer contracts to run their course, but 3 years is more than enough time for that to happen. And for certain legacy software that was never updated to run on anything past XP there is XP mode in windows 7/VM's for that.

So going back to the 04 and 06 updates for most companies, I'll assume most computer lease contracts last for ~4 years. So than means that a company upgrading to XP (on new computers) in 04, would upgrade again in 08 (still running xp) and 2012 (should be on 7). For an 06 company it would be 2010 (should have switched to 7) and 2014.

I don't expect businesses to upgrade to every version of windows. They typically use every other version.

Which means ~6 years on one os (technically 8 for 2 4yr computer lease cycles).

Xp is 12 years old. Think about that There is absolutely no excuse for not moving on to a newer version of windows at this point. Hell MS's sop is support for 11 years, with XP they made it ~13 which is insane.

Seriously XP is a significant detriment, crippling modern hardware and full of security flaws.

Hell even the US army (and likely other military branches) started moving to vista in 09:

If the frigging US army with all its bureaucracy and red tape can upgrade past XP back in 2009 there is no excuse for businesses.

tldr: you are talking out of your ass trying to defend the continued existence and use of windows xp.

As for your web development issues, I fail to see why you can design websites for IE version 8 and above. (hell you should look into cutting off 8 soon).

Plenty of other websites did it for earlier versions (before8 ) of IE.

Are you $#@!ing kidding me?

I don't own or run this company Matrix. It's not up to me. I'm the low man on the totem poll and the owner is like 65. How am I "defending the continued use" of XP, when I'm simply stating that many businesses operate on significantly older hardware and operating systems?

Lmfao @

As for your web development issues, I fail to see why you can design websites for IE version 8 and above. (hell you should look into cutting off 8 soon).

Plenty of other websites did it for earlier versions (before8 ) of IE.

Ok, look. Most companies have a policy of continued service up to a certain software level. For us, that's IE7. XP and up can use IE8. IE9 and IE10 we simply cannot really use or hope to test on, we're flying in the dark there.

However the issue grows more complicated when you start having to make these browser based adjustments on merchant systems- in particular the custom brewed kind. The kind that has been in use for YEARS and simply saying "LOL OVERHAUL!" is as impractical as it is stupid. I'm not saying the place I work for has much in the way of "best practices"- but that's just the real world. The real world operates in an inefficient asymmetrical manner.

Of the two of us, I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

And when I said "upgrading to constantly get more out of your hardware" I'm talking specifically about Windows 7 ---> Windows 8. That's a total joke man, there is no massive world changing performance increase. Certainly not one that is offset by the cost of upgrading, adapting to all that is new and ensuring all of your (often proprietary) software works just fine on it. This is not an easy upgrade for many businesses.

Alot of the machines here are so old that upgrading to Windows 7 (instead of say, would not improve performance. Not in any pragmatic or meaningful way.

The business world is a strange place, especially small businesses that have carved out a niche.

And the military may have a "ton of bureaucratic red tape" but they also have billions upon billions of dollars in funding to throw around. Hardly a comparable situation.

I'm not defending bad practices of businesses, I'm just point out its reality. I'm also pointing out that twisting peoples arm to upgrade in order to get access to basic features that are kind important is messed up. A reasonable decision to make as MS to try and goad more people to upgrading, but it still sucks.

Again, Mozilla and Google upgrade their browsers all the time for XP and up.

I don't own or run this company Matrix. It's not up to me. I'm the low man on the totem poll and the owner is like 65. How am I "defending the continued use" of XP, when I'm simply stating that many businesses operate on significantly older hardware and operating systems?

Lmfao @

Ok, look. Most companies have a policy of continued service up to a certain software level. For us, that's IE7. XP and up can use IE8. IE9 and IE10 we simply cannot really use or hope to test on, we're flying in the dark there.

However the issue grows more complicated when you start having to make these browser based adjustments on merchant systems- in particular the custom brewed kind. The kind that has been in use for YEARS and simply saying "LOL OVERHAUL!" is as impractical as it is stupid. I'm not saying the place I work for has much in the way of "best practices"- but that's just the real world. The real world operates in an inefficient asymmetrical manner.

Of the two of us, I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

And when I said "upgrading to constantly get more out of your hardware" I'm talking specifically about Windows 7 ---> Windows 8. That's a total joke man, there is no massive world changing performance increase. Certainly not one that is offset by the cost of upgrading, adapting to all that is new and ensuring all of your (often proprietary) software works just fine on it. This is not an easy upgrade for many businesses.

Alot of the machines here are so old that upgrading to Windows 7 (instead of say, would not improve performance. Not in any pragmatic or meaningful way.

The business world is a strange place, especially small businesses that have carved out a niche.

And the military may have a "ton of bureaucratic red tape" but they also have billions upon billions of dollars in funding to throw around. Hardly a comparable situation.

I'm not defending bad practices of businesses, I'm just point out its reality. I'm also pointing out that twisting peoples arm to upgrade in order to get access to basic features that are kind important is messed up. A reasonable decision to make as MS to try and goad more people to upgrading, but it still sucks.

Again, Mozilla and Google upgrade their browsers all the time for XP and up.

There is a difference between understanding reality and accepting it.

And sometimes neither the carrot or the stick is enough so you need both.

The vast majority of businesses can afford the upgrades I described. Why they choose not to do them usually comes down to them being cheap, lazy (seeing the current systems are acceptable or enough to get buy) or incompetent.

The biggest mistake MS made was not sticking to their 3 year OS cycle allowing people to grow complacent and content with XP. So that when later versions of windows came out they were reluctant to move on.

My dad works for GE and up until 2 years ago he used NT because certain custom designed programs he had to use to get hs job done would only work on it, they were not compatible with XP or vista or seven. His department was the only part of the business using NT, the rest were using XP.
New software was commissioned to replace te old stuff that would work on seven, this software is still having some bugs ironed out an being improved to this day.

Its not about features but about having all the updates in to one package for business's and for builders like me or you or anyone who builds there own rigs, having the complete package means you can make slipstreams for Windows 7 and create a more refined copy of your Windows 7 installation. For business's it means it can be rolled out all in go without the need to patch one at a time it's would save MS tons of bandwidth to there update servers with the complete roll out than individual patches.

Basically, they wanna keep things exclusive to Windows 8 in order to get more developers on board, that would make users have to go that route to support newer software purchases, etc. It's pretty shady, and the main reason I won't go past Windows 7.